Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 5460

 1                           Wednesday, 21 November 2012

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           --- Upon commencing at 9.33 a.m.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Good morning to everyone.  Mr. Registrar, would you

 6     please call the case.

 7             THE REGISTRAR:  Good morning, Your Honours.  This is case

 8     IT-09-92-T, the Prosecutor versus Ratko Mladic.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Registrar.  I have heard nothing

10     about preliminaries.  For the Prosecution, who is going to deal with the

11     witness?

12             MR. WEBER:  Good morning, Your Honours.  Adam Weber on behalf of

13     the Prosecution.  At this time the Prosecution would seek leave to

14     present the evidence of John Hamill.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Could the witness be escorted into the

16     courtroom.

17                           [The witness entered court]

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Good morning.  Good morning, Mr. Hamill.

19             THE WITNESS:  Good morning, Mr. President.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Hamill, before you give evidence, the Rules

21     require that you make a solemn declaration.  May I invite you to make

22     that solemn declaration of which the text is now handed out to you.

23             THE WITNESS:  I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the

24     whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

25                           WITNESS:  JOHN GERARD BRENDAN HAMILL

Page 5461

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.  Please be seated, Mr. Hamill.

 2             THE WITNESS:  Thank you, sir.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Hamill, you'll first be examined by Mr. Weber.

 4     Mr. Weber is counsel for the Prosecution, and you'll find him to your

 5     right.

 6             Mr. Weber, you may proceed.

 7             MR. WEBER:  Thank you, Your Honours.

 8                           Examination by Mr. Weber:

 9        Q.   Mr. Hamill, good morning.

10        A.   Good morning.

11        Q.   Could you please tell us your full name along with your current

12     rank and assignment in the Irish defence forces.

13        A.   My name is John Gerard Brendan Hamill.  I'm a lieutenant-colonel

14     in the Irish defence forces, and I am currently serving in defence force

15     headquarters in Dublin.

16        Q.   Have you provided evidence before this Tribunal on three previous

17     occasions in the cases of Prosecutor versus Galic, Prosecutor versus

18     Kordic and Cerkez, and most recently in the Prosecutor versus

19     Radovan Karadzic?

20        A.   Yes, I have.

21        Q.   Did you have the opportunity to review your previous testimony in

22     the Galic case prior to today?

23        A.   Yes, I did.

24        Q.   Are there any corrections that you would like to make to this

25     previous testimony?

Page 5462

 1        A.   No.  That testimony stands as given.

 2        Q.   If you were asked the same questions that you were asked in the

 3     Galic case would your answers be the same, I take it?

 4        A.   Yes, they would.

 5             MR. WEBER:  At this time, the Prosecution tenders a redacted

 6     version of Lieutenant-Colonel Hamill's previous testimony in Galic as a

 7     public exhibit.  The transcript has been uploaded under 65 ter 28551.

 8             MR. IVETIC:  No objection from the Defence.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

10             THE REGISTRAR:  It becomes Exhibit P537, Your Honours.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  P537 is admitted into evidence.

12             MR. WEBER:

13        Q.   During your previous testimony in Galic, you commented upon the

14     UNPROFOR investigation report dated 15 February 1994, which related to

15     your investigation into the shelling of the Markale market on

16     5 February 1994.  Did you again review this report and its annexes prior

17     to your testimony today?

18        A.   Yes, I did.

19        Q.   Were there duplicates of a report by a Captain Verdy and cover

20     pages included in these materials?

21        A.   There were.  There were three copies of the same document.

22             MR. WEBER:  Your Honours, at this time the Prosecution tenders

23     two exhibits associated to the witness's previous testimony.  The

24     Prosecution has removed the duplicates and cover pages from 65 ter 10010

25     and tenders the materials uploaded under 65 ter 10010A.

Page 5463

 1             The second 65 ter number is 17881, which is a map marked by the

 2     witness during the previous testimony.  The Prosecution tenders both

 3     exhibits publicly.

 4             MR. IVETIC:  No objection from the Defence as to either.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar, 65 ter 10010A receives number?

 6             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit P538, Your Honours.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  P538 is admitted into evidence.  65 ter 17881, map

 8     marked by the witness.

 9             THE REGISTRAR:  Becomes Exhibit P539, Your Honours.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  P539 is admitted.

11             MR. WEBER:  Your Honours with your leave the Prosecution would

12     request permission to present the public summary of

13     Lieutenant-Colonel Hamill's evidence.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed as you suggested.

15             MR. WEBER:  Lieutenant-Colonel John Hamill served in Sarajevo as

16     a United Nations military observer from May to August 1993.  During this

17     period, he worked exclusively in the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps or SRK-held

18     territory.  His duties and functions at the time included monitoring the

19     use of weapons as well as carrying out a liaison function at the SRK

20     command in Lukavica.

21             In February 1994, Lieutenant-Colonel Hamill returned to Sarajevo

22     as a technical advisor to a United Nations team tasked with investigating

23     the shelling of the Markale market.

24             During the course of the team's investigations, the witness had

25     occasion to speak with the Bosnian Serb Army's designated liaison for the

Page 5464

 1     team, a Colonel Cvetkovic, whom he understood to be the commander of a

 2     SRK artillery regiment.  In the course of this interview,

 3     Colonel Cvetkovic confirmed there were a number of 120-millimetre mortars

 4     to the north-north-east of the Markale market in Mrkovici, and he said

 5     that in the previous year, the BSA artillery had fired 30.000 to 40.000

 6     rounds into the city.  He asked Lieutenant-Colonel Hamill why they were

 7     so concerned about the one round when they had fired so many.

 8             Although not personally present at his UNMO position on

 9     1 June 1993, this witness examined two shell craters in Dobrinja in 2001

10     related to scheduled incident G4.

11             This concludes the summary of the witness, Your Honours, may I

12     proceed with my questioning?

13             JUDGE ORIE:  You may, Mr. Weber.

14             MR. WEBER:

15        Q.   On page 6163 of your previous testimony, you stated:

16             "I certainly remember times when 3.600 rounds were fired into the

17     city from the north over a 12-hour period."

18             Who would fire the large quantity of rounds on these occasions?

19        A.   Those rounds would have been fired by the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps

20     artillery, which was based in the area north of Vogosca and Radava, north

21     of the city of Sarajevo.

22             MR. WEBER:  Your Honours, the Prosecution sought leave to add

23     three exhibits for this witness.  At this time, I would seek permission

24     to use one of those three exhibits.  It has been uploaded as

25     65 ter 28554.  It is an UNMO sitrep related to the time period Mr. Hamill

Page 5465

 1     was present in Sarajevo.

 2             MR. IVETIC:  No objection.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Leave is granted.

 4             MR. WEBER:  Could the Prosecution please have 65 ter 28554 for

 5     the witness.

 6        Q.   Directing your attention to the Sector Sarajevo UNMO daily sitrep

 7     for 21 and 22 July 1993, which is now before you, do you recall the

 8     shelling described in the "General situation" section of this document?

 9        A.   Yes, I do.

10        Q.   Could you please explain to us what happened on this occasion?

11        A.   At that time most of the area north of Sarajevo was closed to the

12     military observers from the United Nations organisation.  However, we

13     were still able to listen to and hear shelling going on from the area

14     east of Rajlovac, in other words, Vogosca, Radava, Polinje, and we heard

15     and recorded a total as you see here of 3.777 rounds which impacted in

16     Sarajevo.

17        Q.   Based on your experience as an artillery officer, what level of

18     command could have authorised such an expenditure of artillery?

19        A.   This was a very high-level --

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic.

21             MR. IVETIC:  I'm going to object that they're asking for an

22     expert opinion, they're asking for a conclusion, and they're asking for

23     speculation.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Whether it's all of the three, but ...

25                           [Trial Chamber confers]

Page 5466

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  The question as phrased is inadmissible.

 2             MR. WEBER:

 3        Q.   Lieutenant-Colonel Hamill, in your previous testimony it is

 4     indicated that you had been an artillery officer since 1974, and you also

 5     discuss your experience with the command staff of the SRK.  Based on your

 6     experience with artillery and also your familiarity with the SRK command

 7     staff in Lukavica, are you able to comment at all on what level of

 8     command could have authorised such an expenditure of artillery on this

 9     occasion?

10             JUDGE ORIE:  You're asking the same, Mr. Weber, more or less.

11             MR. WEBER:  Okay.  Your Honour, I'm happy to move on.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Please do.

13             MR. WEBER:  Could I please have the top of page 2 of this

14     document.

15        Q.   Under the section entitled "Restrictions to UNMO movement," the

16     sitrep states:

17             "Patrolling of the Lima 11 area is still impossible by the local

18     and armed gang leader."

19             Do you know who is the local and armed gang leader being referred

20     to in the sitrep?

21        A.   Yes, I do.  His name was Vasilije Vidovic and I had personal

22     experience of him at that time.

23        Q.   On pages 6063 and 6218 to 6219 of your previous testimony you

24     discuss Vidovic and his men.  You stated on page 6218 that you believed

25     these men were under the control of a particular officer.  What was the

Page 5467

 1     name of this officer in?

 2        A.   I was informed that they were under the command of a

 3     General Josipovic, who apparently was in charge of most of the northern

 4     Sarajevo Sector.

 5        Q.   The Prosecution tenders 65 ter 28554 as a public exhibit.

 6             MR. IVETIC:  No objection.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

 8             THE REGISTRAR:  It becomes Exhibit P540, Your Honours.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  P540 is admitted into evidence.

10             MR. WEBER:  Could the Prosecution please have 65 ter 13707.

11        Q.   Directing your attention to the sector Sarajevo UNMO daily sitrep

12     for 23 and 24 July 1993 which is now before you, are you familiar with

13     the "General situation" section of this document?

14        A.   Yes, I am.

15        Q.   Do you know if the situation described in this sitrep was part of

16     the same events that we just saw from a few days earlier?

17        A.   It is my belief that it is, because it was just two days after

18     the previous events, and it would appear to be just a continuation of the

19     same operation.

20             MR. WEBER:  The Prosecution tenders 65 ter 13707 as a public

21     exhibit.

22             MR. IVETIC:  No objection.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

24             THE REGISTRAR:  It becomes Exhibit P541, Your Honours.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  P541 is admitted.

Page 5468

 1             MR. WEBER:  Could the Prosecution please have 65 ter 19268.

 2             Your Honours, just to inform the Court, the translation is still

 3     pending for this, but we do expect this shortly.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  I have no idea yet what it is, so it's -- let's have

 5     a look at it.

 6             MR. WEBER:

 7        Q.   Lieutenant-Colonel Hamill, the Prosecution would like to go

 8     through some available information from the 18 hours prior to the

 9     shelling of the Markale market on 5 February, 1994.

10             Do you recognise the type of document that is now before you?

11        A.   Yes, I do.

12        Q.   What kind of document is it?

13        A.   This was a CapSat transmission, an update to the daily situation

14     report of the UNMOs in Sarajevo, and it was given at midnight on the

15     4th of February.

16        Q.   Does this update relate to a particular time period?

17        A.   It relates to the period from 1800 hours to midnight on the

18     4th of February, the day before the Markale incident.

19        Q.   What do the four-digit numbers that appear within the parentheses

20     represent?

21        A.   The four-digit numbers are grid references each covering a

22     kilometre square.

23        Q.   This update refers to BiH in as 64 mixed and 14 AAA, no BiH

24     outgoing were heard or seen.  It reflects eight mixed and 50 AAA outgoing

25     from the BSA.  What does it mean when an UNMO reports either impacts or

Page 5469

 1     outgoing fire as mixed?

 2        A.   Mixed would mean a combination of guns and mortars.  It's not

 3     always possible to --

 4             MR. IVETIC:  Your Honours --

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic.

 6             MR. IVETIC:  -- if I may, I would object to the question as

 7     phrased insofar as it appears the counsel is now testifying.  Unless the

 8     witness has some personal knowledge of this or can confirm having been

 9     receiving this document, I don't believe that the material in the

10     document can be submitted in this fashion.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Let's see.  What now exactly -- "It reflects eight

12     mixed and 50 AAA outgoing from...," is that what you're referring to,

13     Mr. --

14             MR. IVETIC:  That's correct, Your Honour.  We've established the

15     date of this is February 5th 1994, at a time period when this witness was

16     not in Sarajevo as part of the UNMO mission.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  The objection is denied.  But, Mr. Weber, could you

18     ask the witness when he was -- when he took up office and when he left

19     it, whether there was a standard system of referring to issues like mixed

20     or AAA so that we know what the basis of his knowledge is when he answers

21     the question.

22             MR. WEBER:  Of course, Your Honours.

23        Q.   Lieutenant-Colonel Hamill, was there a standard system of

24     referring to issues like mixed or AAA that UNMOs used when reporting

25     either outgoing or incoming fire?

Page 5470

 1        A.   Yes, there was.  I had spent nearly nine months in the operation

 2     at that time, part of the time writing these reports, part of the time

 3     receiving the reports at the headquarters in Zagreb.  And if possible,

 4     one should distinguish between tank, mortar, and artillery fire, but it

 5     wasn't always possible.  So they would be referred to as mixed.  But if

 6     at all possible, the items, the explosions, should be separated out into

 7     what type of weapon fired them.

 8             AAA refers to anti-aircraft artillery fire.  The mixed would

 9     refer to a possible combination of tank rounds, gun rounds, or mortar

10     rounds.

11             MR. WEBER:  Could the Prosecution please have page 2 of this

12     65 ter.

13        Q.   Lieutenant-Colonel Hamill, this is an UNMO daily sitrep for

14     Sector Sarajevo for 5 February 1994, between the hours of 0001 and 0800.

15     Could you please review this document and let us know when you've

16     completed it.

17        A.   Yes.

18        Q.   Were you aware of these last two sitreps when you conducted your

19     investigation into the Markale shelling in February 1994?

20        A.   I don't believe that I was, no.

21        Q.   The sitrep before you indicates that residential areas in the

22     city centre were shelled.  What is the objective of shelling residential

23     areas between these hours?

24             MR. IVETIC:  Object.  Calls for speculation.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber, would you rephrase your question.

Page 5471

 1             MR. WEBER:

 2        Q.   Based on your own military experience, is there any legitimate

 3     military purpose to targeting residential areas between these hours?

 4             MR. IVETIC:  Object.  Calls for legal conclusion.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber, if you ask the witness perhaps about what

 6     he learned during his education about shelling during the day-time you

 7     might receive the information you're apparently seeking.

 8             MR. WEBER:

 9        Q.   Lieutenant-Colonel Hamill, throughout your experiences with the

10     Irish Defence forces, have you ever receive training and also provided

11     instruction on whether or not certain targets would be considered

12     legitimate military targets?

13        A.   Yes, I have.

14        Q.   Could you please briefly tell us what that experience is?

15        A.   A legitimate target is a target which is of high value which is

16     military and which is not one which would be against the

17     Law of Armed Conflict, such as a city centre or a residential area.

18        Q.   Would you consider the shelling the city centre between the hours

19     of midnight and 8.00 that's reflected in this sitrep before you to be a

20     legitimate military activity based your experience and training?

21             MR. IVETIC:  Your Honours, same objection, same legal conclusion.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Now, these kind of conclusions, Mr. Weber, of

23     course are for the Chamber.  The Chamber might be assisted by knowing

24     what the effect of this type of shelling would be under those

25     circumstances.  So if you would wish to elicit such evidence, it is not

Page 5472

 1     covered by the objection.  Please proceed.

 2             MR. WEBER:  Thank you, Your Honours.

 3        Q.   What would the effect of this type of shelling be under these

 4     circumstances?

 5        A.   Unless there was a military target involved which was engaged in

 6     active military activity, I cannot conceive of any reason for shelling

 7     the area at that time.

 8             MR. WEBER:  At this time, the Prosecution tenders 65 ter 19268 as

 9     a public exhibit.

10             MR. IVETIC:  Your Honour, we would object insofar as the witness

11     at transcript page 11, line 17, said he doesn't believe that he was

12     provided these at the time that he was involved in the Markale

13     investigation.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  But, Mr. Ivetic, just one short question.

15     Apparently Mr. Weber wants to establish what knowledge Mr. Hamill did not

16     have at that time, and by showing him a document and saying, Did you have

17     this knowledge available, would that not shed additional light on what

18     knowledge the witness had at the time and what knowledge he did not have?

19             MR. IVETIC:  And if the witness can add something to the document

20     it could be admitted through the witness otherwise it's not for this

21     witness who has neither authored the document nor received the document,

22     nor is it during the time period that he had personal knowledge of the

23     events in question since he was not in Sarajevo after August of 1993.

24                           [Trial Chamber confers]

25             JUDGE ORIE:  The Chamber denies the objection.

Page 5473

 1             Mr. Registrar.

 2             THE REGISTRAR:  65 ter 19268 becomes Exhibit P542, Your Honours.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  P542 is admitted into evidence.

 4             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, if we could please leave it MFI'd, I'm

 5     sorry, just pending the translation.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  It has to be MFI'd.  Sorry for that mistake.

 7     And there's another matter.

 8             Mr. Ivetic, you have not asked it to be read so that it could be

 9     translated for Mr. Mladic.  May I take it that there was no need to do

10     that?

11             MR. IVETIC:  That is correct, Your Honours.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Then I correct my earlier pronunciation of admission

13     and P542 is marked for identification waiting translation.

14             MR. WEBER:  Could the Prosecution please have Exhibit P538,

15     page 42 of the English original only.  The B/C/S translation is on

16     page 55, but it is simply a duplicate of the English page.

17        Q.   Lieutenant-Colonel Hamill, this is a document that was annexed to

18     your 15 February 1994 UNPROFOR investigation report.  Could you please

19     tell us what this document is?

20        A.   This document is an Increp or incident report from the Papa side,

21     which is the Presidency side of the UNMO operation within Sarajevo.  And

22     what an incident report is is a report on the incoming shells and other

23     types of munitions into the area of the Presidency side during the period

24     in question.

25        Q.   What date does this Increp relate to?

Page 5474

 1        A.   It relates to the 5th of February, 1994.

 2        Q.   Directing your attention to the far left column entitled

 3     "Sender serial," what do the letters and numbers in this column

 4     represent?

 5        A.   The first two letters and numbers, the letter and the digit --

 6     Papa 3, for example refers to an UNMO post known as Papa 3 on the

 7     Presidency side.  As they logged the income shells, mortar shells,

 8     4 mortar shells from 0530 to 0535, they gave it a serial number, 01.

 9     Similarly Papa 2 at 0645 logged one mortar bomb and gave it the title

10     Papa 2-01 and so on down.  So it relates to the UNMO post and the number

11     that they had allocated to the incident.

12        Q.   I know you've started to explain some of the other information in

13     this document, but if I could direct you specifically to the centre

14     column entitled "Activity details."  There are letters followed by a

15     number, and then separately a four-digit number.  Could you please tell

16     us what these notations represent?

17        A.   The letter refers to the type of weapon that is being used.  So

18     if memory serves me correctly, Alpha or A is for guns, B is for mortars,

19     C is for tanks, and so on.  The number immediately following the first

20     letter refers to the number of rounds of that type of munition, and then

21     the four digits at the right-hand side of that column refers to the grid

22     reference, the 1 kilometre square within which the munitions fell.

23        Q.   I know you've started to explain it, but just so we have a clear

24     record, on the basis of the explanations you just provided, would it be

25     correct to interpret the first entry, as an example, as indicating there

Page 5475

 1     were four mortar impacts observed by a Papa team between 5.30 and 5.35 in

 2     the morning in grid 9259?

 3        A.   That's precisely correct.

 4        Q.   On this page there's an entry for Markale.  Do you have any

 5     observations of the shelling activity leading up to this entry?

 6        A.   This entry is -- is quite specific.  It says that Markale is in

 7     grid 9260, which is incorrect.  It's actually in grid 9259.  But going to

 8     the substance of your question, it shows that there were mortar bombs

 9     falling within the Sarajevo city centre area in the period leading up to

10     that particular one bomb on Markale, some at 10.00 in grids 9059 and some

11     reported by Papa 5 between 11.30 and 12.45 in grid 9159, which is the

12     neighbouring grid to the Markale grid.  It's approximately anything from

13     900 to 1.900 metres from Markale.

14             MR. WEBER:  Could we please have the lower part of this page.

15        Q.   Do you have any observations of the shelling activity after the

16     Markale entry?

17        A.   Clearly shelling continued throughout the day from mortars, from

18     tanks, and fell generally in the city centre and also in the western part

19     of the city.

20        Q.   Overall, how would you describe the level of activity on the --

21     on 5 February 1994?

22        A.   It wasn't very heavy.  It was relatively light.  It was a normal

23     Sarajevo day, from my experience.

24        Q.   You've mentioned that the grid reference of 9260 for Markale was

25     incorrect.  Did you have the opportunity during proofing yesterday to

Page 5476

 1     compare this reference to a map and also the six-digit grid reference of

 2     929596 listed on the first page of these investigative materials?

 3        A.   Yes, I did.

 4        Q.   Could you please briefly explain the difference between a

 5     four-digit and a six-digit grid reference?

 6        A.   The four --

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber, I think the Chamber received evidence

 8     that a three-digit grid reference gives a square of 1 kilometre by

 9     1 kilometre, whereas a four-digit gives a square of 100 metres by 100

10     metres.

11             THE WITNESS:  That's almost correct, Your Honour.  Almost

12     correct, yes.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Almost correct.  Then, please, it's always good to

14     know where our understanding is wrong.

15             THE WITNESS:  It's --a four-digit grid gives one square kilometre

16     and a six-digit grid is 100 metres by 100 metres.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, what I meant to say, as a matter of fact, is

18     that four is 2 by 2 --

19             THE WITNESS:  Yes.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Six is 3 by 3.

21             THE WITNESS:  3 by 3, yes.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  So, yes, now I think we understood this estimate.

23     Thank you.

24             Please proceed Mr. Weber.

25             MR. WEBER:  Could the Prosecution please have 65 ter 9821A for

Page 5477

 1     the witness.  It is a map.  There's no translation.

 2             If we could please have it magnified in the upper right-hand

 3     corner of this map.  If we could please have an additional magnification.

 4     Could the witness please be provided with a pen.  I believe the witness

 5     has one.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, but you need a special pen, Mr. Hamill, to mark

 7     anything on the screen.

 8             THE WITNESS:  Yes, Your Honour.  I imagine this is possibly it.

 9     It was connected to the screen.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, but we have different colours.

11             THE WITNESS:  Okay.  Sorry.

12             MR. WEBER:

13        Q.   Lieutenant-Colonel Hamill, are you able to locate the grid

14     references on the map before you?

15        A.   Yes, I am.

16        Q.   Could you please locate the spot associated to the six-digit grid

17     reference of 929596 on the map before you and circle it.

18        A.   [Marks]

19        Q.   Could you please place an X inside of the area corresponding to

20     grid 9260.

21        A.   [Marks]

22             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, the Prosecution tenders this map as

23     marked by the witness.

24             MR. IVETIC:  No objection.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

Page 5478

 1             THE REGISTRAR:  Marked version of 65 ter 9821A becomes

 2     Exhibit P543, Your Honours.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  And is admitted into evidence.

 4             MR. WEBER:  Your Honours, the Prosecution has no further

 5     questions at this time.  We tender the witness.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Hamill, you'll now be cross examined by

 7     Mr. Ivetic.  Mr. Ivetic is a member of the Defence team of Mr. Mladic.

 8     You will find him to your left.

 9             THE WITNESS:  Thank you, Your Honour.

10             MR. IVETIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

11                           Cross-examination by Mr. Ivetic:

12        Q.   Good morning, Lieutenant-Colonel Hamill.  Before I begin with my

13     questions, I'd like to take the chance to remind you that since we both

14     speak English, we have to be mindful to have pauses between question and

15     answer so that the translator and -- the translators and the

16     court reporter can keep up with us.  Is that okay?

17        A.   That's fine.

18        Q.   And let's begin with the questions.  First of all, sir, could you

19     please tell us what, if any, training or instruction specific to the

20     constitutional framework of the former Socialist Federative Republic

21     of Yugoslavia you received prior to your deployment to Bosnia as part of

22     the UN?

23        A.   In terms of formal training, I can say that I received none

24     specifically, except that I educated myself by reading what I could not

25     on the constitution but on the history of former Yugoslavia as it was and

Page 5479

 1     also of the conflict to date.

 2        Q.   Did you undergo or undertake any special review or training or

 3     instruction as to the armed forces and/or the defence system of the

 4     former Yugoslavia such as the structure of the JNA, the structure of the

 5     VRS, or the structure of the so-called Armija BiH?

 6        A.   Yes, I did.

 7        Q.   Could you tell us what that instruction entailed?  Was it --

 8     first of all, was it self-education?

 9        A.   No, it was provided by my defence forces at home prior to my

10     deployment.

11        Q.   How extensive was it in terms of the amount of time that was

12     spent?

13        A.   Extensive enough that as a trained military officer with more

14     than 20 years' experience, I was well able to take in what a normal

15     military structure was and is.

16        Q.   For those of us without 20 years' experience, how long is it in

17     terms of hours, days, weeks?

18        A.   I had 20 years' experience on training of being a military

19     officer.  I was a senior officer at the time.  I completed a command and

20     staff course with distinction.  I had degree, and I had post-graduate

21     training.  So I can't actually quantify how much training I received

22     during my military experience which would enable me to understand foreign

23     armies, but take it that it was something in the region of two full

24     years.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic, there maybe some confusion.  I think

Page 5480

 1     that you are interested to know what specific additional training the

 2     witness received shortly before he went to the former Yugoslavia, perhaps

 3     after he had heard that he would be sent there.  Is that -- could you

 4     tell us how intensive or how much time briefing and instructions took

 5     once you knew that you would be sent to the former Yugoslavia?

 6             THE WITNESS:  Mr. President, I cannot recall specifically at this

 7     time, but it was certainly a period of a number of days.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.  That answers the question, I take it,

 9     Mr. Ivetic?

10             MR. IVETIC:  Yes, it does.  Thank you.

11        Q.   Sir, when you were first deployed to Bosnia-Herzegovina were you

12     able to speak the local language, or did you have to rely upon an

13     interpret?

14        A.   I relied upon interpreters.

15        Q.   And were the interpreters that were used locals, that is to say

16     locals from Yugoslavia, or were they persons that came from outside of

17     Yugoslavia?

18        A.   They were all Bosnians.

19        Q.   Did you have occasion to use the same interpreters when you were

20     part of the UNMO mission as you used when you did your subsequent

21     investigations into the Markale and the Dobrinja incidents?

22        A.   No.  I used interpreters which were employed by UNMO Sarajevo

23     during my deployment there.  When I went back subsequently I used

24     interpreters which were employed by the ICTY, as I understand.

25        Q.   Let's break that up.  You say you used interpreters by the ICTY.

Page 5481

 1     Are you referring there to the Dobrinja investigation but not the

 2     Markale, I would imagine?

 3        A.   Not the Markale, no.

 4        Q.   In relation to any briefings that you received as part of the

 5     UNMO mission, am I correct that you were -- part of your briefings

 6     entailed a warning that the Bosnian Presidency forces in town could very

 7     well place dead bodies in crime scenes to create a false image?

 8        A.   This was stated.

 9        Q.   I would now like to ask you to confirm some things about the

10     skills or science involved in the use of artillery.  In order to assist

11     us, I would like to turn to some of your testimony in the Kordic and

12     Cerkez case.

13             MR. IVETIC:  So if we can call up document 1D438 in e-court.  And

14     if we could turn to the second page of that document.  I believe it will

15     be transcript page 16184.

16             And if we can focus on the fifth and sixth line onward.  It would

17     be lines 5 through 19, approximately, that I'd like to draw the witness's

18     attention to.

19        Q.   Sir, here I will present to you the portion of the transcript

20     beginning the end of line 5 through line 19 and ask you to comment on it

21     afterwards:

22             "Q.  One point of amplification:  Is calculating the place from

23     which artillery fires a practical skill used by soldiers on the ground?

24             "A.  Yes, it is.

25             "Q.  The reason being, that if you are being fired at, and you

Page 5482

 1     can't see where the guns are firing from, you actually need to work it

 2     out?

 3             "A.  You need to work it out in order to return fire.

 4             "Q.  Is that a skill, therefore, in which artillery officers are

 5     trained?

 6             "A.  Yes.

 7             "Q.  And were you so trained?

 8             "A.  I was."

 9             First of all, sir, as a formality can you confirm the selection

10     of the transcript I have read as being true and accurate in form?

11        A.   I presume it is.  I haven't seen it in the past 12 years or

12     thereabouts.

13        Q.   Am I correct that in this case, that is to say the Kordic case,

14     you were testifying as an expert having performed approximately one week

15     of an analysis of a particular shelling in the city of Zenica?

16        A.   That is correct.

17        Q.   Now, when it's recorded here that you said if one doesn't see the

18     artillery firing you have to "work it out in order to return fire," could

19     you tell us, does this mean that one must examine the crater hits from

20     incoming fire to determine the potential source?

21        A.   That is one method.  There are other methods.

22        Q.   Okay.  Using any of these methods is this an instantaneous

23     process or does it take time?

24        A.   Using that process, it takes time.  And furthermore, it is only

25     possible to get the general direction from which the weapon was fired.

Page 5483

 1     It is not possible to calculate the range.

 2        Q.   In the case of mortars that are used in a shoot and scoot manner

 3     by the other side, is it fairly possible that the weapons that were the

 4     source of incoming fire can be long gone by the time that the receiving

 5     side works out the direction where from the fire came and attempts to

 6     return fire?

 7        A.   Absolutely.

 8        Q.   Can you just briefly describe to us what is shoot and scoot?

 9        A.   Shoot and scoot is used by mortars, because mortar fire is easily

10     detected, mortars are slow weapons, the -- the projectile is subsonic, so

11     it can be detected in the air by a missile system, for example, which

12     would then give the operator of the missile system -- or sorry, the radar

13     system a means of locating where the mortar was firing from.  So mortar

14     will go into a position.  It will fire a number of rounds, and it will

15     then leave.  So it shoots and it scoots.  It leaves the area and

16     redeploys elsewhere.

17        Q.   And am I correct that this shoot and scoot is a mortar tactic

18     that is taught and used by NATO-aligned forces?

19        A.   Yes, it is.

20        Q.   Do you know if this was a tactic, shoot and scoot, which was

21     taught under the SFRY or JNA system?

22        A.   I would imagine that it was, but it was not the way that mortars

23     were deployed in Sarajevo by the SRK.  It was used by the Presidency

24     side.

25        Q.   And just for the sake of clarity, I believe you may have already

Page 5484

 1     touched upon this topic, but the process of working out the source of

 2     incoming fire can only determine the bearing, because the range of the

 3     incoming shell is determined on the amount of charge that is placed on

 4     the mortar round; is that correct?

 5        A.   That is correct.

 6        Q.   And am I also correct that there is no forensic evidence that can

 7     be obtained at the site of a round impact as to the amount of charge that

 8     was on that round because all of this was used up at the time of firing?

 9        A.   That's precisely correct.

10        Q.   And I apologise, this may seem like a layman's question, it may

11     be foolish to you, but is it possible to determine how far a shot has

12     travelled in relation to how far -- how deep it has impacted on a hard

13     surface, that is to say the funnel -- the fuse tunnel or furrow of the

14     crater?

15        A.   I am not aware of any publication which would give that type of

16     information.  Particularly as when the round impacts on the ground, the

17     surface can be of various different types.  It can be concrete which is

18     reinforced, concrete which is not reinforced.  There can be asphalt.

19     There can be earth.  You know, it's just simply not possible to establish

20     how -- how far it had come from.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic, you earlier had problems with expert

22     matters.  It is my recollection reading some of the judgement of this

23     Tribunal that the matters you are addressing at this moment were dealt

24     with by experts extremely specialised in this area, including the issues

25     as you just mentioned them.  Therefore, I'm wondering whether or not the

Page 5485

 1     basis of the knowledge of this witness on these matters should be tested

 2     before we ask questions around these matters, apart from whether this is

 3     expert evidence or not.  I am perhaps a bit little less concerned by it

 4     in the formal sense than you are.  The same may be true for my

 5     colleagues.  But is there anyway, for example, to ask the witness whether

 6     he's aware of studies of the composition of the ground in relation to the

 7     penetration of the sound by projectiles, whether he has any knowledge of

 8     that?

 9             Mr. Hamill, perhaps -- I think you heard the question.  Are you

10     aware of any studies of impact -- of projectiles on the various types of

11     soil, concrete?  Are you familiar with that?

12             THE WITNESS:  I have not seen such literature, Mr. President.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  I think the matter of the expertise arises

14     here, Mr. Ivetic, and I'm quite willing -- perhaps we should not discuss

15     it in the presence of the witness.  Therefore, I suggest that we take a

16     break in a couple of minutes but that we already invite the witness to

17     leave the courtroom and take the break -- before we take the break.

18                           [The witness stands down]

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic, if you would read the proceedings, for

20     example, in the Galic case, you'd find out that - and, of course, I'm

21     referring to that case only - that experts of the Prosecution, expert of

22     the Defence, both trained in the same field - I think even one being the

23     professor of the other - agreed on important matters which required a

24     thorough knowledge of exactly the kind of things Mr. Hamill has just told

25     us he doesn't know about.  So therefore, I wonder what is the use of

Page 5486

 1     asking these questions which require not only a bit of expertise but the

 2     highest possible expertise, which was, as I understand, only developed in

 3     the cases before this Tribunal, and then to ask the witness questions in

 4     the area where he has clearly shown to have no knowledge, let alone

 5     expert knowledge.

 6             MR. IVETIC:  Well, Your Honours, then I'm really confused,

 7     because the basis and bulk of this witness's testimony in direct

 8     examination were two analyses that he performed of incoming fire, one for

 9     the Prosecution, one for the United Nations, and which are the bulk of

10     his testimony.  So is he or is he not qualified to talk about examination

11     of craters which is precisely the area that I'm asking him about.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  I would say -- I'm inclined to say that with the

13     limited training and therefore also with the limited results, if I ask

14     someone who is not very trained in a certain area, I should explore the

15     level of his training, and whatever his conclusions are is always limited

16     by the level of his knowledge.  If that is -- if you would agree with

17     that and that whatever the witness says, and when you're talking about

18     the range of fire whether you could draw any conclusions on the basis of

19     the composition of the soil, if the witness says, I do not know,

20     apparently he's not familiar with that subject.  And, therefore, if he

21     would draw conclusions for which you would need to know that and that

22     would, for example, not be crater analysis which does not pay attention

23     to the depth of impact but just pays attention to the origin of fire in a

24     more broad sense, that it came approximately from this direction without

25     saying anything to the range, as the witness said, then I think we

Page 5487

 1     would -- we would be assisted by this evidence, also by knowing what its

 2     limited meaning has to be.

 3             Would you -- is this something you would agree to or not, because

 4     then we can leave out the composition and depth of impact if it comes to

 5     any further details which would lead to assessing the range of fire other

 6     than in terms of direction, at least on the basis of the composition of

 7     the soil.

 8             I see you're nodding yes, which doesn't appear on the --

 9             MR. IVETIC:  I will be happy to ask him as to his experiences of

10     doing crater analyses and the education and training he has had in that

11     regard if that will assists in terms of his knowledge base for the

12     answers to the questions he provided to the Prosecution and to the

13     Defence.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Mr. Weber, would you agree with this approach?

15             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, the Prosecution has nothing to add.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Then we take a break, and we resume at 5 minutes to

17     11.00.

18                           --- Recess taken at 10.33 a.m.

19                           --- On resuming at 11.01 a.m.

20                           [The accused not present]

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Stojanovic, the Chamber establishes that the

22     accused, that Mr. Mladic, is not in the courtroom.  Could you provide us

23     any further information.

24             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.  After the end

25     of the first session, Mr. Mladic complained that he was not feeling well,

Page 5488

 1     that he's dizzy, and in the room we were in, a medical worker took his

 2     pressure, and his pressure is close to the maximum normal.  He says he

 3     feels his right-hand side of the body is feeling numb.  It was said that

 4     medics from the Detention Unit will be consulted, and we asked what was

 5     going to happen afterwards.  We also asked Mr. Mladic if he was able to

 6     join us in the courtroom.  He said he was not, and he asked us to inform

 7     you thereof, and he also asked to be given the necessary assistance.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 9                           [Trial Chamber confers]

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Stojanovic, we do understand that Mr. Mladic

11     receives the assistance he has asked for.  He says he is unable to join

12     and to inform us about that.  Can we continue as far as the Defence is

13     concerned?

14             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, he did not

15     authorise us to continue without his presence while he is in such a

16     condition.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Would that mean -- of course, the Chamber decides on

18     whether or not there are sufficient reasons not to proceed.  Would that

19     mean that if we decide to proceed that you would not further

20     cross-examine the witness?  Is that -- or Mr. Ivetic would not further

21     examine the witness?  Is that -- because I'm not telling you a secret

22     when I say that we had a long history of claims about not feeling well

23     which finally were medically not substantiated.  That is the reason why

24     the Chamber is a bit cautious in not proceeding.  The Chamber is also

25     aware that if we would proceed, first of all that everything is audio and

Page 5489

 1     video recorded.  Second, that if the appropriate remedy would be to hear

 2     again part of the testimony of the witness that that is still an option

 3     to be considered, but we have lost considerable time for claims of

 4     feeling unable to attend where there was no medical basis for that.

 5             Therefore, the question is:  What if the Chamber now would decide

 6     to proceed, again with all the caveats I just gave to you, possibility to

 7     follow the proceedings?  We'll know soon whether there are any medical

 8     reasons for Mr. Mladic, that he cannot attend as he claims until now.

 9             Would you like to briefly discuss this with Mr. Mladic?  Then we

10     would take a break of another -- one second.

11                           [Trial Chamber confers]

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Judge Moloto has a question.

13             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Mr. Stojanovic, the person who you say attended to

14     Mr. Mladic was interpreted as a medical worker?  What kind of medical

15     worker is this?  What's the qualification of the person?

16             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we do not know

17     that.  I'm saying that no medical assistance has been given to

18     Mr. Mladic, only his pressure was taken.  That's all we were told about

19     his pressure.  And we were also told that Dr. Falke from the

20     Detention Unit will be consulted immediately because of the indications

21     presented by Mr. Mladic.

22             JUDGE MOLOTO:  My question is:  The medical worker who took his

23     pressure, what level of qualification is he?

24             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] We don't know that, Your Honour.

25             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.

Page 5490

 1                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  We'll take -- we'll take a break of ten minutes.

 3     During these ten minutes, Mr. Stojanovic, you have an opportunity to

 4     further discuss the matter with Mr. Mladic, and the Chamber will have a

 5     possibility to further inquire into what has happened until now and what

 6     the exact situation is.

 7             We take a break and we resume at 20 minutes past 11.00.

 8                           --- Break taken at 11.10 a.m.

 9                           --- On resuming at 11.29 a.m.

10                           [The accused entered court]

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Could the witness be escorted into the courtroom.

12     Meanwhile, I establish that Mr. Mladic is present in the courtroom.

13             Mr. Stojanovic, the Chamber has used the break to consult

14     Dr. Gerts, and the Chamber establishes that as matters stand now, on the

15     basis of the information we have now, that there is no objective medical

16     reason to support the absence of Mr. Mladic in court, and we would have

17     proceeded without his presence if he would not have appeared in court.

18             Second, the Chamber takes it that the time we've lost with all

19     this should not make any change in this week's schedule.  So therefore,

20     keep this in the back of your mind that the last half hour is a half an

21     hour you have lost.

22                           [The witness takes the stand]

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Hamill, welcome back.

24             THE WITNESS:  Thank you, sir.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  It was a bit longer than you may have expected.

Page 5491

 1     Mr. Ivetic will now resume his cross-examination.

 2             Mr. Ivetic, the Judges briefly discussed the matter, and I think

 3     the preferred way of proceeding is to first ask what the witness did and

 4     found and only after that pay attention to whether that fits into his

 5     expertise or his special knowledge.  Please proceed.

 6             MR. IVETIC:  Okay.

 7        Q.   In terms of the crater analyses that you have performed in the

 8     course of your career, including the one at the Markale site and the

 9     Dobrinja site, am I correct that you estimate a range of possible

10     distances that a round travelled based upon the type of shell and the

11     known range table for that or similar type of ordnance based on the

12     various possible charges that could be fitted to the same?

13        A.   That is correct.

14        Q.   And for the record, how are these range tables generated?

15        A.   Range tables are generated by the manufacturers of the ammunition

16     in co-operation with the manufacturers of the weapon.  The range tables

17     provide information in relation to the range depending on the number of

18     charges that are fitted to the particular type of projectile and the

19     angle at which it is fired.

20        Q.   And in performing your crater analysis of these two sites and all

21     of them that you have formed in your career, am I correct that depending

22     on the number of charges that are fitted to a shell before it is fired

23     the maximum distance of a particular ordnance could vary by as much as a

24     few hundred metres to over several kilometres?

25        A.   Absolutely.

Page 5492

 1        Q.   And in the analysis that you performed, am I correct that based

 2     upon the minimum and maximum ranges of a particular ordnance that you

 3     have found to have landed, you then look at known or fixed locations of

 4     artillery or mortars to determine what potential sources for that fire

 5     exist?

 6        A.   Not necessarily, because, of course, weapons can be moved from

 7     their positions and are regularly moved from their positions.  That was

 8     not normally the case in the case of the RSK weaponry around Sarajevo.

 9     As I have previously indicated in previous evidence, it normally stayed

10     in the same position.  However, what one does find are general areas, six

11     in this case, where the weapon could have fired from.

12        Q.   And just to clarify, you said RSK.  Did you mean SRK, the

13     Sarajevo-Romanija Corps?

14        A.   Sorry, correct.

15        Q.   And the six locations that you said that the fire could have come

16     from, were these all locations where there was existing artillery in

17     place either on the Armija side or the SRK side?

18        A.   No.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber.

20             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, I believe we're just causing possibly a

21     little confusion in the record.  There's been reference to multiple

22     analyses and now there is discussion of six locations.  Maybe for clarity

23     we could establish which one of the investigations he's now discussing.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  I have suggested, Mr. Ivetic, that the preferred way

25     of proceeding is to find out what the witness did and what he observed,

Page 5493

 1     and to do that in general terms might be less assisting the Chamber than

 2     if you look at what did you do here, what did you do there?  Please

 3     proceed.

 4             MR. IVETIC:  I apologise, Your Honour.  I thought we were talking

 5     about Markale.

 6        Q.   Colonel --

 7        A.   So did I.

 8        Q.   With -- with regard to -- let's stick with Markale for the

 9     moment.  In the case of a mobile mortar or one being used in a shoot and

10     scoot capacity, would it be difficult to locate such pieces through any

11     type of analysis that you do?

12        A.   That's a very difficult question to answer.  If there was a fixed

13     position from which the mortar normally fired, then clearly it would be

14     visible, but in the fact that because the possible positions cover a

15     large area, it would be very difficult to find any physical evidence that

16     the mortar had fired from there.  We're talking in terms of an area

17     possibly hundreds of metres long by tens and possibly a hundred metres

18     wide.  Because of the inherent inaccuracy of a mortar, we're looking

19     backwards rather than forwards, as it were.

20        Q.   We'll get to that.  If I can direct specifically to Markale, the

21     areas that were the potential sources for fire that you say covered a

22     larger area, is it possible for a mobile mortar being used in a shoot and

23     scoot capacity to have been the origin of that shot and to therefore no

24     longer be an identifiable mortar position?

25        A.   Certainly.

Page 5494

 1        Q.   Now, you have mentioned the inherit inaccuracy of a mortar.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Could I just ask.  You're asking a general question,

 3     but you say it is about Markale.  That makes it a hypothetical question,

 4     I take it, that -- I'm a bit confused by this is Markale and then to ask

 5     potential sources of fire, larger area.  Is it possible for a mobile

 6     mortar being used in that and that capacity.  So you're subsuming all

 7     kind of assumptions, make all kind of assumptions and then link that to

 8     Markale where nothing of the kind has been, as far as I'm -- as far as I

 9     understand, has been established.  So therefore if it is a general

10     question, then it comes close to the expert questions.  If it is specific

11     about Markale, then I have not seen or heard any of these facts or

12     assumptions to be further explained.

13             MR. IVETIC:  Your Honour, I prefaced my question saying

14     specifically with Markale.  I don't know how much further I can direct it

15     to be about Markale, and I asked the witness are we talking about

16     Markale.

17             THE WITNESS:  I assume we are talking about Markale, and I assume

18     we are talking about the analyses which were done by me and by my team on

19     the 11th and 12th of February, 1994.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  So what we are then talking about is -- let's

21     then have a look at what the team did, what they wrote down about it, and

22     then if the finding was A, B or C, then to ask the witness further

23     questions about that.  Then we know what we are talking about.  At this

24     moment it is Markale, and it's at the same time a very general approach.

25             MR. IVETIC:  Your Honour, Rule 92 ter has been utilised for this

Page 5495

 1     witness to introduce his transcript and has been utilised to introduce a

 2     report on this investigation.  If I must go through every step of that

 3     then I will need several days for this witness.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Take us to the report.  Take us to the page, and

 5     then -- then we know exactly what we're talking about.

 6             MR. IVETIC:

 7        Q.   Sir, did you -- did you prepare a report with your findings --

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  There is no problem that he did prepare a report.

 9     Take us to the report and to the page and then we are able to follow your

10     questions.

11             MR. IVETIC:  Well, Your Honour, if the witness prepared a report

12     why can't I have the witness's knowledge of the report?  Why can't he

13     testify to that?

14             JUDGE ORIE:  No, but you should assist us take us in taking us to

15     the part of the report where you were questions about, where your

16     questions are of a very general nature and you don't have to ask the

17     witness whether he wrote a report.  That is not in dispute.  Just say to

18     us, I'm focusing now on this report or on testimony page that and that.

19     We'll be able to follow and we'll then proceed as efficiently as

20     possible.

21             MR. IVETIC:  I'd love to, Your Honours, except the report that I

22     used in preparations is not the same report that's in evidence because it

23     was changed this morning, so I don't have the page references for

24     Your Honours.  But let us turn to --

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  Mr. Weber will assist you, I take it.

Page 5496

 1     Exhibit number already assists.

 2             MR. IVETIC:  It's Exhibit 5 -- 538.  P538.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

 4             MR. IVETIC:

 5        Q.   And with respect to --

 6             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, maybe to assist Mr. Ivetic if he's using

 7     the report, in the upper right corner of the documents that have been

 8     admitted there's a 2 of -- it starts at 2 of 46.  That will put him in

 9     the approximate page range.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  We all have access to e-court.  I have it already on

11     my screen in e-court on the basis of the exhibit number.  That's the

12     document we're talking about.

13             MR. IVETIC:

14        Q.   If we can turn to the page -- first of all, sir, am I correct

15     that a number of individuals assisted or participated in the preparation

16     of this report with --

17        A.   Yes.

18        Q.   -- yourself?

19        A.   Yes.

20        Q.   And with respect to the report, the findings were that there were

21     six potential locations that could have been the source of the -- of the

22     incoming round and it could not be determined what side of the

23     confrontation line the round came from; is that accurate?

24        A.   That is accurate.

25        Q.   And from the six positions from which it was said that the

Page 5497

 1     incoming fire could have come from, four were on the SRK or the

 2     Bosnian Serb side and two were on the Bosnian Muslim or Bosnian

 3     Presidency side?

 4        A.   Correct.

 5        Q.   And with respect to that area that we're talking about that could

 6     be the potential area that a shell could have come in from, I now return

 7     to my original question which was:  From that area would it also be

 8     possible for a mobile mortar being used in a shoot and scoot capacity to

 9     have fired from those areas and to have been the source of the shell that

10     impacted on the Markale marketplace in February of 1994?

11        A.   Obviously.

12        Q.   Okay.  I'd like to -- I'd like to ask you in regards to Markale.

13     Were you able to perform a traditional fuse tunnel test to determine the

14     bearing or direction of the --

15        A.   Yes, but it -- the ground had been somewhat disturbed so it

16     wasn't as accurate as I would have liked.

17        Q.   Before we get back to your report, I'd like to ask you about

18     something that you had -- in one of your prior written statements.  If I

19     can return to 1D441, and first if we could have the first page so the

20     witness could recognise the same.

21             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Sorry, Mr. Ivetic, did you say 441 or 411?

22             MR. IVETIC:  441, Your Honours.

23             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.

24             MR. IVETIC:

25        Q.   And, sir, we now have the first page up on the screen and it has

Page 5498

 1     some signatures on the bottom, if you could focus on those.  Does this

 2     appear to be one of your prior statements dated December 13, 14, 15 of

 3     1995?

 4        A.   Yes, it does.

 5        Q.   And is it signed by you?

 6        A.   Yes, it is.

 7        Q.   Thank you, sir.  If we could turn to the sixth page in court in

 8     English and the seventh page in B/C/S and I'd like to focus on the last

 9     paragraph in the English that leads on to the next page, and on the B/C/S

10     it's all on the same page.  And I'd like to present you with what you

11     affirmed in your statement on that day and then I'll ask you for some

12     comments on it.  First of all:

13             "I later spoke with Colonel Radislav Cvetkovic, commander of the

14     BSA artillery to the eastern side of Sarajevo who denied that they had

15     fired the shell and who stated that he had fired 30- to 40.000 on the

16     city in the previous year, so why would he deny this one if it was not

17     true?"

18             First of all, sir, having now seen and having heard me read this

19     selection of your statement, do you agree that this is in relation to the

20     Markale investigation?

21        A.   Yes, I do.

22        Q.   Do you believe that this section of the statement that I read to

23     you is truthful and accurate as to your knowledge and recollection of

24     this discussion that you had with -- or encounter with Colonel Cvetkovic?

25        A.   Yes, it is.

Page 5499

 1        Q.   And just to be clear so there is no confusion,

 2     Colonel Cvetkovic's statement to you has to be understood as denying that

 3     the BSA fired that shell?

 4        A.   Yes, of course.

 5        Q.   And this 1995 statement that you -- that contains this testimony

 6     from you was taken just over one year after you had the meeting with

 7     Colonel Cvetkovic?

 8        A.   Slightly more.  I had the meeting with Colonel Cvetkovic on the

 9     14th, I think, of February, 1994, and the statement, as you pointed out,

10     was taken around the 11th to the 12th of December, 1995, but I remember

11     to this day very clearly the conversation I had with Colonel Cvetkovic.

12        Q.   And does the selection we've just read from your 1995 statement

13     comport with your very clear recollections?

14        A.   Absolutely.

15        Q.   That's all I needed, sir.  Thank you.  Now, as part of your

16     investigation into the Markale incident, did you become aware that there

17     was a police building or headquarters within 300 metres of the site of

18     the blast?

19        A.   I believe so, yes.

20        Q.   I'd now like to return to P538, and I believe it should be

21     page 54 in the e-court of the version that is in e-court.  And while we

22     wait for that, sir, the report that is on the screen is -- is part of the

23     packet that is the result of your investigative team's efforts and -- and

24     am I correct that this is the prior investigative team --

25     Mr. Captain Verdy, this is his findings or his cover sheet of his report?

Page 5500

 1        A.   That is correct.

 2        Q.   And am I correct that this was available to you and indeed

 3     reviewed by you prior to making your own conclusions as to the bearing of

 4     the shell?

 5        A.   I'm not sure as to whether I reviewed it before or after I

 6     conducted my own investigation but it was certainly made available at

 7     that time, and I found it, as I'm sure you're about to introduce, as

 8     being completely and utterly wrong.

 9        Q.   First I'd like to focus on the item labelled as G, description of

10     evidence.  Description -- pardon me, description of damage.  And there it

11     states:

12             "The mortar shell impacted on the wood of a stall (0.9 metres

13     from the ground) so that the analysis was very difficult."

14             Do you agree with this assessment by Captain Verdy?

15        A.   I do not.

16        Q.   Do you believe that the shell impacted at ground level or some

17     distance above ground level?

18        A.   I believe that the shell impacted on the ground and detonated

19     either at ground level or slightly below ground level, very slightly

20     below.

21        Q.   Would you agree with me that by the time you arrived at the site

22     much of the location had been swept and most of the debris had been

23     removed?

24        A.   I would say that a lot of debris had been removed but sufficient

25     remained that we could conduct a proper analysis of the situation and the

Page 5501

 1     area.

 2        Q.   If we can please turn to page 51 in e-court of this same document

 3     in the English and page 70 in the B/C/S version.  And

 4     Lieutenant-Colonel Hamill this is what is identified as an amplification

 5     of the analysis, and it's signed on the next page by Major John Russell.

 6     First of all, who was Major Russell in relation to the investigative team

 7     that you partook?

 8        A.   Major Russell was not a member of the investigative team.  He

 9     was, I believe, the military advisor or military assistant to the

10     commander of the UN force in Bosnia.  I didn't meet him.  I didn't meet

11     him specifically.

12        Q.   If we can focus on the part labelled part with the number 1.

13     This which we can -- you can read.  It's on the bottom of the screen.

14     This section indicates that a minimum of three craters is necessary to

15     give a better chance of confirming a weapons system location.  Would you

16     agree with that assessment?

17        A.   It certainly would help, yes.

18        Q.   And just so we're clear, now talking about the Markale incident,

19     there was only crater, is that accurate?

20        A.   That is correct.

21        Q.   And if we can look at his description which is also contained in

22     part 1 where he states:

23             "In this situation, the mortar round apparently struck vendor's

24     table which initiated the round just prior to striking the ground.  This

25     can be confirmed by, one, the small crater's signature (a 120-millimetre

Page 5502

 1     mortar would naturally make a bigger crater on the pavement found at the

 2     market) and, two, the amount of casualties generated by the explosion

 3     leads one to conclude that a slightly above-ground explosion occurred."

 4             Do you -- did you and your team agree with this assessment?

 5        A.   No.

 6        Q.   Did you or other members of your team have an opportunity to

 7     dispute or discuss these findings with other UN personnel involved?

 8        A.   The team discussed them with the team.  There was a total of four

 9     members on the team plus two technical advisors, and we discussed it

10     amongst ourselves.

11        Q.   Okay.  And just so that we're clear, how many members of the team

12     were there in addition to yourself?

13        A.   Team leader, three members, myself, and an EOD expert.

14        Q.   And was it the unanimous conclusion of all team members that the

15     precise source of the fire could not be distinguished; that is, that

16     either side could have been the source for this shell, either the --

17        A.   Yes.  Yes.

18        Q.   Okay.  I'd like to now move to the Dobrinja investigation and

19     specifically deal with that particular investigation that you

20     were [overlapping speakers]

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Before we move on, could I ask the witness one or

22     two questions.  Mr. Hamill, have you read any of the reports which were

23     later produced before this Tribunal by experts Vilicic and Zecevic.

24             THE WITNESS:  No, sir, I have not.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Have you in any other way familiarised yourselves

Page 5503

 1     with what in addition to the technical possibilities you had at the time

 2     were available to experts that later studied and examined the matter?

 3             THE WITNESS:  No, sir.  When we concluded our report on the

 4     15th of February, that was the end of it, as far as we were concerned.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.  Please proceed, Mr. Ivetic.

 6             MR. IVETIC:

 7        Q.   Thank you.  Now again so we're clear, Colonel - I apologise for

 8     having to repeat this - but so that everybody's clear now let's talk

 9     about Dobrinja.  First of all, the two craters that you found on site

10     were filled with a red substance --

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Any documents you're referring to or just the

12     testimony of the witness in the previous case; and if so, what page

13     approximately?

14             MR. IVETIC:  Let's call up Exhibit 1D435.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  It has not received an exhibit number yet, Mr. --

16     no.

17             MR. IVETIC:  No.  This is 65 ter number 1D435.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

19             MR. IVETIC:  Which I believe is an information sheet dated the

20     18th of September, 2011, and is the result of a meeting between

21     Lieutenant-Colonel Hamill and members of the Prosecution, specifically

22     Mr. Barry Hogan and Mr. Chester Stamp.

23        Q.   First of all, sir, do you recall a meeting with the Prosecution

24     on the date in question?

25        A.   Yes, I do.

Page 5504

 1        Q.   And if I can direct your attention to the third paragraph on this

 2     document.  It says and I begin:

 3             "The craters are old, and both have been filled with a red

 4     substance that has the effect of largely preserving them.  However, the

 5     process did interfere with the craters to some extent.  I made the

 6     assumption that the craters were not interfered with unduly, and that the

 7     red substance was the only interference.  Crater 1, the easternmost, was

 8     better preserved than crater 2.  The interference was such that it is not

 9     possible at this time to determine whether the craters were made by a gun

10     or a mortar.  However, there were indications in crater 1 that it was a

11     light-calibre gun.  There were traces of 'wings' which are characteristic

12     of a crater formed by a shell from a gun or howitzer, rather than a

13     mortar bomb.  That is not to say that it was definitely not a mortar.  If

14     it was, it was most likely a medium mortar.  I made examinations based on

15     both types of projectiles, using different methods.  Given the condition

16     of the craters, the results were not significantly different."

17             First of all, sir, my reading of this, are these your words?

18        A.   Yes, they are.

19        Q.   And do they accurately and truthfully depict your observations as

20     you remember them as to these two craters in the Dobrinja region?

21        A.   Yes, they do.

22        Q.   And did anyone ever advise you who had placed the red substance

23     in these craters?

24        A.   Possibly I was told at the time that it was done by the

25     authorities, but I cannot say at this stage.

Page 5505

 1        Q.   Have you ever experienced the use of such a substance in prior

 2     crater analyses that you've performed?

 3        A.   No.

 4        Q.   To your knowledge and in your military training, is the use of

 5     any such substance ever been presented as an accepted practice for the

 6     investigation of craters?

 7        A.   Not to my knowledge.  But the reason for the plasticisation, if

 8     you can call it that, was to preserve the craters in their original state

 9     or as close to their original state as a memory to those who were killed

10     at that spot.

11        Q.   The red substance, I presume, prevented the fuse tunnel method

12     from being employed by you to determine the direction or bearing of the

13     shot?

14        A.   That is correct.

15        Q.   And I think we've now twice made reference to the fuse tunnel

16     method.  I know it's in your transcript, but could you please briefly

17     describe for us how that fuse tunnel method is employed?

18        A.   Okay.  What happens is that when a mortar bomb hits the ground,

19     it impacts at a particular angle.  The fuse is at the top.  The fuse is

20     largely undamaged and is driven forward by the force of the explosion.

21     This causes a tunnel several centimetres in length at a specific angle.

22     Following on from that, the tail fin of the mortar which is inert, in

23     other words, it does not have explosive substances attached, continues

24     and follows the fuse down the fuse tunnel.  So we have a very good normal

25     angle of incidence of the mortar bomb.

Page 5506

 1        Q.   And if we look at the bottom of this document that is in e-court

 2     before us, your information sheet from proofing with the Prosecution, I

 3     see here that you state that it is your professional opinion that the

 4     rounds that impacted on Dobrinja on 01 June 1993 came from the L5A

 5     position and were most likely a 122-millimetre projectile.  Is this

 6     accurate as to your conclusion?

 7        A.   That is accurate, but as I stated there, that is an opinion.  I

 8     am not stating it as a fact.

 9        Q.   Fair enough, sir.  And is that because you cannot 100 per cent

10     exclude the possibility the -- both were caused by a mortar?

11        A.   Correct.

12        Q.   And I have another question.  Is it also possible that it could

13     have been an 82-millimetre shell that could cause at least one of the

14     craters?

15        A.   Yes.

16        Q.   And your opinion that the L5A site could be a source for the

17     fire, would that be due to it being a known artillery position in the

18     general bearing that you determined?

19        A.   Yes, it was.  And it was one which I had personal knowledge of at

20     that time.

21        Q.   As you sit here today, you cannot exclude the possibility that

22     there are unknown sites in that same general bearing including mobile

23     shoot and scoot units?

24        A.   There were definitely mortar units based in the same area.

25     That's a fact.  And they weren't employed in shoot and scoot area.  They

Page 5507

 1     were located permanently in the Toplik area.  So it could have been fired

 2     from those.  It's within range.

 3        Q.   I apologise.  Just waiting for the transcript to catch up.

 4        A.   Okay.

 5        Q.   As to the location where the shells fell, you conducted your

 6     investigation several years after the conclusion of the war; is that

 7     correct?

 8        A.   That is correct.

 9        Q.   Therefore, you cannot speak as to any military instalments or

10     structures that may have been in that general area when the shots

11     actually fell?

12        A.   To the best of my knowledge, and I have to emphasise it is to the

13     best of my knowledge, because we had UNMOs in that area on a daily basis

14     there were no military targets there at the time.

15        Q.   You have mentioned the gun position L5A.  I presume that would be

16     Lima 5A.

17        A.   Correct.

18        Q.   Was that gun position monitored by the UNMO mission at the time?

19        A.   Yes, it was.

20        Q.   Have you ever seen or heard of a shoot-rep report from that

21     particular location that matched with the date and time and type of

22     ordinance as to the shot that fell on Dobrinja?

23        A.   Not to my memory.  Could I say that it was several years

24     afterwards when I was approached in terms of the Dobrinja incident, and I

25     would have not had information recorded with me at that time.  It is

Page 5508

 1     possible, due to the position I was in, that I did receive a report at

 2     the time, but if so, as I say, it's long gone.

 3        Q.   And I presume that any such report would not have been the basis

 4     of your conclusion or opinion?

 5        A.   Absolutely not.

 6        Q.   In regard to being approached in terms of the Dobrinja incident,

 7     could you detail for us who approached you to examine the Dobrinja

 8     incident years after the incident?

 9        A.   I was approached by the ICTY OTP, I presume, Mr. Chester Stamp

10     and Mr. Barry Hogan.

11             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's note:  Could witness and counsel

12     please make pauses between question and answer.  Thank you.

13             THE WITNESS:  Sorry.

14             MR. IVETIC:

15        Q.   And were you engaged in the capacity of an expert for purposes of

16     that examination?

17        A.   Yes, I was.

18        Q.   And when you say the OTP, you mentioned two individuals.  Am I

19     correct they're the same individuals that are named on this information

20     sheet?

21        A.   Yes, they are.

22        Q.   Thank you.  I'd like to move on to some other areas of your

23     personal involvement or knowledge, so I'd like to go back to the time

24     when you were an UNMO in Sarajevo, and I'd like to look again at your

25     1995 statement.  So that's 65 ter number 1D441.  And this time, page 4 of

Page 5509

 1     the same in the English and page 4 also in the B/C/S.  And, sir, I'd ask

 2     for us to focus on the third paragraph from the top, and that reads as

 3     follows:

 4             "My experience was that before the Serbs fired their artillery,

 5     they called in the team members, they made their elevation, bearing and

 6     waited for UNMOs before they fired the guns.  This was my experience on

 7     the south side of the city."

 8             First off, Colonel, can you confirm the truthfulness and accuracy

 9     of this part of the statement, your 1995 statement that I have just read?

10        A.   Yes.  That was certainly the case for most of the firings from

11     Lima 5.

12        Q.   You've anticipated my question by going specifically to Lima 5.

13     Is it meant to be Lima 5 or is this, generally speaking, true for all of

14     the Lima sites that you had knowledge of on the south side?

15        A.   Lima 5.

16        Q.   And I'd like to turn to 65 ter 1D439, which is a transcript of

17     some of the testimony that you gave in 2010 in the Karadzic proceedings.

18     I will be looking for page 62 in e-court, beginning on line 1.  That

19     should correlate to transcript page 9734 of that case's record of

20     transcript.

21             And again the first several lines of the page are what I'd like

22     to focus on, so if we can zoom in on that for the benefit of everyone

23     who's following.  And I will read for you, sir, and you can follow along:

24             "Q.  In contrast to the Serb, as you confirmed through your

25     observations, the Muslim Army often changed their positions.  They had

Page 5510

 1     mortars either on trucks or they changed their positions, as such.  You

 2     observed that the Serbs mostly had stationary weapons.  They did not move

 3     them; right?

 4             "A.  In general times -- in general terms, the VRS did not move

 5     their heavy weapons.  They kept them in situ, which made it very easy to

 6     keep an eye on them."

 7             First of all, Colonel, can you confirm the accuracy of this

 8     selection of the Karadzic testimony, that it comports to your knowledge

 9     and recollections.

10        A.   It is accurate insofar as it goes.  However, we were not aware of

11     all artillery positions of the VRS on the south side and particularly not

12     on the north side of the city.  We were told at one stage by a VRS

13     commander that we only knew about 12 per cent of their weapons.  I think

14     he was exaggerating downward.

15        Q.   I'd like to focus on the other side, the Muslim side.  Am I

16     correct that the weapons during the time period that you were there on

17     the Muslim side were not all being easily tracked by the UNMOs?

18        A.   I presume when you say the Muslim side, you mean the Armija BiH.

19        Q.   Papa side [indiscernible].

20        A.   Or Papa side.  Yes, I can accept that.  They were not easily

21     tracked, no.

22        Q.   And if we can continue reading from this same page, line numbers

23     9 through 14.  And again, sir, I'll present you with the question and

24     answer and ask for some follow-up.  The question was:

25             "Q.  Thank you.  In the southern part of Sarajevo, you saw Serb

Page 5511

 1     artillery positions.  When the Serbs wanted to fire their mortars or use

 2     their other artillery pieces, they informed the monitors of their

 3     intention, they would mention what their targets would be, and they asked

 4     whether the monitors wanted to observe that; right?

 5             "A.  That certainly happened on many occasions."

 6             Does that comport with your experience and recollection of that

 7     experience?

 8        A.   Yes, it does.

 9        Q.   And when it was presented to you that the Serb artillery units

10     that you were observing and dealt with would tell UNMOs their targets

11     that they were shooting at, is that something that you have personal

12     knowledge of?

13        A.   It is something that I am aware of, but you must remember that

14     the UNMOs were a very mixed background.  We had army, navy, and

15     air force, very many of whom would have no experience with artillery

16     weapons and would not be able to technically examine the end product, as

17     it were, of the shelling.

18        Q.   But you do not dispute that the Serb artillery operators would

19     advise them of what the target was before shooting?

20        A.   That would generally be the case, yes.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Could I just seek clarification.  When you say that

22     would generally be the case, generally be the case on the many occasions

23     where that happened?  Is that, I have to understand, generally being the

24     case?

25             THE WITNESS:  Yes, Mr. President.

Page 5512

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

 2             MR. IVETIC:

 3        Q.   The VRS personnel that you interacted with, the actual artillery

 4     commanders or operators, did they seem co-operative and forthcoming with

 5     you?

 6        A.   Yes.

 7        Q.   And -- and would you say that you established a good relationship

 8     with many VRS members during the time you were there as an UNMO?

 9        A.   I believe so.

10        Q.   Would it be correct to say that the vast majority of people that

11     you met on the VRS side were locals; that is to say, that they were

12     persons who lived in the local area surrounding Sarajevo or had come from

13     the centre of Sarajevo as refugees, that they were local -- local to that

14     terrain?

15        A.   As IDPs, not as refugees.  They were within their own country.

16     But yes to both.

17        Q.   Thank you for that clarification.  The area of the Lukavica

18     barracks where you spent much of your time when you were an UNMO, did it

19     receive fairly regular fire from the Bosnian Presidency side?

20        A.   It received fire on irregular occasions from the Presidency side,

21     yes.  Both small arms and mortar.

22        Q.   If we can turn back to your statement of 1995, 1D441, and this

23     time it will be page 4 of the English and page 4 of the B/C/S, and it

24     will be the second paragraph from the top in the English which reads as

25     follows:

Page 5513

 1             "On 26 May 1993, there was a civilian area in the BSA-held

 2     territory attacked by ABiH with 82-millimetre mortars.  The rounds began

 3     to come in in Vojkovici at 1058.  The ABiH fired in total 13 rounds plus

 4     infantry fire.  The response from the BSA came at 1140.  They fired ten

 5     shells.  The incoming rounds came from -- came in from Hrasnica-Igman

 6     area."

 7             Does this paragraph of your 1995 statement comport truthfully and

 8     accurately with your recollections and knowledge of this incident?

 9        A.   Yes, it does.

10        Q.   And do you recall that there had been an agreement reached

11     between the warring parties that a portion of the territory at the

12     Hrasnica-Igman area had been given to the UN and vacated by the Serbs

13     which the army of BiH then, in violation of the agreement, took over from

14     the UN?

15        A.   I do recall that, but it was not at that time.  That was

16     approximately towards the end of July.  It wasn't in May.

17        Q.   Thank you for clearing that up for me.  That's --

18        A.   You're very welcome.

19             MR. IVETIC:  If we can return to 1D439, and page 73 in e-court

20     and focus on line 22 of the same.  It's again the transcript of the

21     proceedings from the Karadzic case, and it should be -- I apologise.  Is

22     this page 70 of the ...

23             THE REGISTRAR:  This is page 73 in e-court.

24             MR. IVETIC:  I apologise.  It should be page 70.  Sorry.  And

25     again, it should be the lines 22 and further.  Yes, that's the one.

Page 5514

 1        Q.   Starting with the question and it will tell you the time-frame

 2     I'm talking about, sir:

 3             "Q.  On the 5th of December, 1993, you went to Kiseljak to attend

 4     a conference, and then you moved to the Papa side.  You saw the

 5     Kosevo Hospital, and you saw two nurses and one doctor killed by a shell.

 6     You also saw a hole in a wall over 1 metre in diameter, forming almost a

 7     perfect circle.  Do you remember that?

 8             "A.  That is almost correct.  I didn't see any nurses or a

 9     doctor killed.  I was informed, when we were there, that there had been

10     those casualties when the building was hit by a shell, but that had

11     happened some time before and I don't know when.  I did see the hole in

12     the wall.  It was a large one, and it was almost a perfect circle.  So,

13     yes, that part is correct."

14             First of all, when you're talking -- does this comport with your

15     recollection, your factual observations at the Kosevo Hospital building

16     in December of 1993?

17        A.   Yes, my answer does.  The question obviously doesn't.

18        Q.   And am I correct that you reached a conclusion based upon this

19     factual observation as to the fire more likely having coming from inside

20     the Muslim or Papa zone rather than from the VRS as is, I believe,

21     contained in the next four lines of the transcript?

22        A.   That was my opinion, yes.

23        Q.   And I'd ask you to give us a little bit of a -- briefly the

24     factual backdrop or bases for that opinion you have.  Explain the same.

25        A.   Okay.  It seemed to me that the fire was a very flat trajectory.

Page 5515

 1     It doesn't come in at an angle otherwise the shape of the hole would have

 2     been different.  But it looked as if it was almost a flat trajectory.  So

 3     it hit and it exploded, and when I looked to the north from where the

 4     round had to have been fired I was only looking within the Presidency

 5     area.  It was not possible to see ground or territory held by the VRS.

 6        Q.   And when you said it had a very flat trajectory, would that -- it

 7     seemed to indicate an artillery weapon in a direct fire?

 8        A.   That would indicate a round that was fired either directly by an

 9     artillery weapon or alternately by a tank.  It would have been fired at a

10     very high velocity, so it was very possibly a tank round.

11        Q.   If we look -- scroll further down on this page at lines 20 to 23.

12     Here you are talking about one shelling incident involving

13     Kosevo Hospital that looked like it originated from a Muslim army tank

14     positioned north of the hospital, and your answer was:

15             "That was my conclusion, yes."

16             Is this the same incident or a different incident that we're

17     talking about?

18        A.   That was the same incident.

19        Q.   If we could turn to the next page in e-court of the document that

20     is up on the screen.  That should be transcript page 9744 of the Karadzic

21     proceedings.  And if we could focus for a moment on line 9 of the same,

22     and I'd like to present again the question and answer for you and ask for

23     you to provide more details:

24             "Q.  Do you agree that it was your view that the Muslim side, or

25     Bosnian side, if you wish, took political advantage of incidents and that

Page 5516

 1     these incidents frequently occurred at the same time as various

 2     international conferences were convened?

 3             "A.  That was certainly my view, my opinion, yes.  But it was my

 4     personal opinion, as such, not a UN position."

 5             Does this part of the transcript from the Karadzic case

 6     truthfully and accurately depict your -- your opinion, I guess, is --

 7     your personal opinion as presented by you.

 8        A.   Mr. Ivetic, you have just read out my answer.  I have nothing to

 9     add.

10        Q.   Thank you.  In the information report from your proofing session

11     with the Office of the Prosecutor earlier this year, you mentioned an

12     incident that had been reported to you of some Serb villages that had

13     been attacked by the Armija near Han Pijesak.  Do you recall the date or

14     any other reference you can give for those reports?

15        A.   That -- yes.  That would have been probably around June, the end

16     of May, June, and into July in 1993, when we were informed by the liaison

17     team in the VRS HQ in Lukavica that villages had been attacked, burned,

18     civilians killed, Serbian -- Serb villagers, Serb villages, and they had

19     been attacked by the Armija.  So we requested through the liaison office

20     that we should go and visit those villages to verify what had happened

21     and we were refused permission.  We requested on a number of occasions

22     when these incidents were reported to us that we should investigate and

23     it was consistently refused.  So we informed our interlocutors that due

24     to their refusal, we would not report the incidents because we did not

25     have first-hand knowledge of such incidents, and we had no eyewitness

Page 5517

 1     reports from an independent source.

 2        Q.   And are you familiar with Francis Roy Thomas who was the SMO in

 3     Sarajevo from October 1993 to July 1994?

 4        A.   Yes, I am.

 5        Q.   Did you have knowledge that Mr. Thomas went to an area near

 6     Han Pijesak and investigated a village that had been attacked in this --

 7     in a similar manner?

 8        A.   As I mentioned, I was discussing the period from May until July.

 9     Roy Thomas arrived in October, as you said.  So, no, I would have no

10     personal knowledge.  At that time I was working in the headquarters as

11     deputy chief operations officer, and we had reports in from throughout

12     Croatia, Bosnia, Macedonia, and Serbia in relation to incidents occurring

13     here, there, and everywhere.  So one particular village and incident

14     wouldn't really stick out in my mind.  I was dealing with the whole of

15     the former Yugoslavia with the exception of Slovenia at that stage.

16        Q.   We do have a report where the SMO, Mr. Thomas, is identifying

17     various villages that according to some NATO intelligence had showed a

18     similar pattern of destruction.  Do you recall the names of any of the

19     villages that you personally heard of such that that would be able to

20     refresh your recollection or -- can I have the answer verbally, please?

21        A.   Sorry, I can't help you, no.

22        Q.   Then I'd like to move to -- I'd like to get some clarification,

23     if I can, from you relative to some features related to the aiming and

24     shooting of artillery.  First of all, could you tell us how many years

25     you've been an artillery officer?

Page 5518

 1        A.   I served in the artillery corps since May 1970.  I've been an

 2     officer since 1974.

 3        Q.   We have talked about mortars in this case being -- or in terms of

 4     the accuracy of mortars.  With respect to mortars, am I correct that

 5     their tube is not -- is ungrooved, is smooth?

 6        A.   Some mortars are rifled and some are unrifled.  The majority of

 7     mortars would be unrifled which would make them more inherently

 8     inaccurate.

 9        Q.   If I could focus on mortars, and am I correct that in terms of

10     mortars one uses a term to describe their landing point as the "beaten"

11     zone?

12        A.   Correct.

13        Q.   And am I also correct that this is an elliptical pattern of a

14     certain area where a number of shells fired from the same piece with the

15     same aim sightings might land?

16        A.   That's correct.

17        Q.   Could you give us a more detailed description of the concept of a

18     beaten zone as to the number of shells that might be expected to land in

19     that area?

20        A.   In general terms, 50 per cent of the bombs fired from a mortar at

21     a specific bearing angle and charge would land within the beaten zone.

22     Another 50 per cent would land outside that.  But you can take it that

23     the beaten zone is quite large and depends on a number of factors

24     including atmospheric conditions, charge temperature, air pressure and

25     the charge it's fired at, the distance, the angle of elevation.

Page 5519

 1        Q.   I think I have most of those.  I'd like to ask you about one that

 2     you did not include -- or maybe did not include, if I'm reading

 3     correctly.  Am I correct it also depends on the type of shell that is

 4     being used?

 5        A.   Well, we were talking about shells being the same type, I

 6     thought.  High explosive shells of a particular nature.

 7        Q.   I apologise.  The beaten zone --

 8        A.   Yes.

 9        Q.   -- as it were, the area of that elliptical -- the size of that

10     elliptical area will vary depending on the type of shell that is at

11     issue?

12        A.   It will vary depending on the type of shell, but generally smoke

13     ammunition and high-explosive ammunition has the same ballistic

14     characteristics, so it wouldn't vary that much.  It varies with the

15     individual shells themselves.  Because of the fact that mortar bombs are

16     not made to the same tolerances that are artillery shells are made, there

17     are slight discrepancies between them.  Maybe just a gram or two grams of

18     weight which would make a deference.  Equally, the charge temperature

19     might be slightly different than one and the next, which would impact on

20     the speed at which the explosion occurs that drives the bomb forward in

21     the barrel.  Equally, the bomb having been fired goes through various

22     different atmospheric layers, and there will be changes in the wind speed

23     and direction in each of those layers even from moment to moment.  These

24     are some of the factors which impact on where the bomb will actually

25     land.  And bear in mind that for a 120-millimetre bomb, the lethal radius

Page 5520

 1     is 54 metres, and the danger zone for unprotected troops is 500 metres

 2     radius.  For protected troops, in other words troops who are in trenches,

 3     for example, it's still 250 metres radius, which means that within

 4     250 metres radius of the detonation of a 120-millimetre mortar bomb, it

 5     is possible to be injured.  It is not necessarily the case that one would

 6     be injured, but it is certainly within the bounds of possibility.

 7        Q.   You've used a term that I'm familiar with, lethal radius.  Could

 8     you please explain the concepts of lethal radius and danger radius to the

 9     members of the panel.

10        A.   The lethal radius is one in which one may expect to be killed by

11     an explosion of a mortar bomb within that distance.  As I say, it isn't

12     always the case that one dies.  One may even escape injury, such being

13     the flukes of ballistics.  But generally one can expect to be killed if

14     one is unprotected within 54 metres of a 120-millimetre mortar bomb.  The

15     danger area is where the shrapnel continues at such a speed that it will

16     injure somebody who is unprotect, and that, as I said, for a 120-bomb

17     normally is considered to be 500 metres.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic, I'm looking at the clock.  Would this be

19     a suitable moment or could you find a suitable moment in the next two or

20     three minutes to --

21             MR. IVETIC:  This would be a suitable moment before I move on to

22     more details.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, could I also ask you whether despite the short

24     delay you are still on track.

25             MR. IVETIC:  I am.

Page 5521

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  You are.  Then we take a break, but not until after

 2     the witness has left the courtroom.

 3                           [The witness stands down]

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  And we will resume at 5 minutes to 1.00.

 5                           --- Recess taken at 12.33 p.m.

 6                           --- On resuming at 12.58 p.m.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Could the witness be escorted into the courtroom.

 8             Mr. Ivetic, it wouldn't be of great use to take another break.

 9     Therefore, the Chamber is considering that we should continue

10     exceptionally for 75 minutes and adjourn at -- without any further

11     breaks.

12                           [The witness takes the stand]

13             JUDGE ORIE:  You may proceed, Mr. Ivetic.

14             MR. IVETIC:  Thank you.

15        Q.   Sir, you spent some time discussing the beaten zone, the lethal

16     radius and the danger radius of shells.  Would I then be correct in

17     concluding from this that in order to be considered militarily on target

18     a round doesn't have to strike that target dead on but merely needs to

19     get within one of these zones or radiuses to be able to neutralise that

20     target?

21        A.   In artillery terms it depends on the type of mission whether it's

22     neutralising or destruction.  A destruction mission is one which targets

23     very specifically a point or points in order to destroy it.  It's very

24     time consuming to get on target, and it's very heavy on ammunition.  What

25     the normal use for artillery is to neutralise a target; in other words,

Page 5522

 1     to prevent the target from reacting or from acting.  So this would mean

 2     that when the round reached the general area of the target, it would be

 3     considered to be a target round.  If it's within 25, 50 metres, it's

 4     certainly considered to be on target.

 5        Q.   And again depending on the target, if it is within the lethal or

 6     danger radius, that could also be sufficient to neutralise a particular

 7     target?

 8        A.   Yes, because we're talking in terms of around 30 to 50 metres

 9     depending on the type of shell.

10        Q.   Now, I would like to go through some of the factors that you, I

11     believe, mentioned a few questions ago that affect the accuracy of a

12     shell.  And I'd like to go through them step-by-step to try and make sure

13     it's clear for everyone, even for those of us that are laypersons.

14             The first variable, I believe, is of a purely mechanical nature,

15     the actual ordnance itself.  I would first like to ask you about

16     so-called tube like.  Is it correct that the more rounds that have been

17     shot through the tube the less accurate the piece becomes even if rifled?

18        A.   Yes.

19        Q.   The next variable I would like to discuss is the quality of the

20     explosive propellant actually used.  Am I correct that with uneven

21     burning characteristics the trajectory of an expelled shell can also be

22     affected?

23        A.   Yes.

24        Q.   I'd like to now for this question focus on the investigation into

25     the Markale incident.  And as far as the propellant is concerned, when

Page 5523

 1     your team visited both the VRS and the Armija BiH sites, you saw ordnance

 2     at both locations that appeared to be not factory made.  Is that

 3     accurate?

 4        A.   No, it is not accurate.  The team did not visit any sites.  There

 5     was a visit by members of Sector Sarajevo under Colonel Pardon, who

 6     visited the BiH sites, the Army of BiH sites, in 105 Brigade and I think

 7     2 Mountain Brigade, but our team did not.  There was no requirement to so

 8     do.

 9        Q.   And if you know, did those visits result in viewing ordnance that

10     was not factory made?

11        A.   I understand that Colonel Pardon from his report reported that he

12     had seen ammunition which was not factory made, or at least not

13     conventional munition factory made.  It was clearly made in some type of

14     a factory or workshop but it was not from a conventional military source.

15     But that's hearsay, by the way, of course.

16        Q.   Okay.  That's contained in the document that's been entered into

17     evidence as P583 [sic].  I'd like to ask about meteorological variables.

18     Am I correct that in order to more accurately fire an artillery round one

19     needs to know the air temperature?

20        A.   Yes.

21        Q.   Am I correct that generally speaking the hotter the air, the

22     greater range of a round, whereas the colder the air and denser the air

23     the fall of shot is steeper?

24        A.   That would be generally correct.

25        Q.   If we can focus for a moment on your investigation related to

Page 5524

 1     Dobrinja.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Could I ask one question in relation to this.  Could

 3     you give us an indication as to, well, let's say a difference of

 4     5 Celsius decrease.  What difference would that make on a shell which

 5     would, well, let's say, travel on average 2.5 kilometres?  Would it then

 6     be 2.6 or 2.4, or would it be 3 or 4?  I mean, what's the, more or less,

 7     the margin of -- well, I wouldn't say error, but the margin of difference

 8     for a degree?

 9             THE WITNESS:  It would be a matter of some metres, Mr. President.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Some metres.

11             THE WITNESS:  That's all.  It would be very minor.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  So we are talking about 2.5 kilometres or 2.510

13     metres.

14             THE WITNESS:  More or less.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  More or less.  Yes, I'm not debating on 5 or 10 more

16     metres.

17             THE WITNESS:  No.  Yeah.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  But to get an impression.  That would, therefore,

19     then be, well, let's say, less than -- certainly less than half a

20     per cent.  Half a per cent would be 12.5 metres.

21             THE WITNESS:  In terms -- in terms of charge temperature alone

22     that would probably be correct, sir, but it's a combination of not just

23     the charge temperature and the air temperature, but also the wind speed,

24     the wind direction and various other factors.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, and if you would add that up that would then

Page 5525

 1     lead to perhaps 50, 100 metres, and -- yes.  Thank you.

 2             THE WITNESS:  And also, Mr. President, it would depend on the

 3     type of shell, so that, for example, a mortar bomb would be more affected

 4     by these factors than an artillery shell because it would be going

 5     through more layers of air at a much slower speed so it would be -- it

 6     would be much more affected.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Could you give us an indication of what that

 8     effect would be?

 9             THE WITNESS:  It could be 100 metres in any direction at a

10     distance of, say, 3.000 metres.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Yes.  And we are still talking in terms of a

12     small percentage.

13             THE WITNESS:  Yes, Your Honour, we are.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.  Please proceed.

15             MR. IVETIC:

16        Q.   If we could focus on the examination -- or the incident in

17     Dobrinja.  Am I correct that the air temperature and/or the barometric

18     pressure were not factors that you had available to you from that day

19     when the shell was fired?

20        A.   Clearly not, but they were totally irrelevant.

21        Q.   Okay.  With -- you've mentioned, I believe, wind loft.  Okay.

22     With regard to --

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic, if you would allow me again one question

24     to clarify.  We -- I do understand that tables are made, that fired on

25     this angle a projectile will travel at such a distance.  Is there a kind

Page 5526

 1     of a standard measurement that you say this is the standard for our

 2     tables is 20 degrees Celsius, wind less than so-and-so, much tail-wind or

 3     no wind at all.

 4             THE WITNESS:  No.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Is that no wind at all?  Temperature is --

 6             THE WITNESS:  Temperature would be standard, so I think probably

 7     15 or 20 degrees [overlapping speakers]  I'm not sure to be honest.  But

 8     it would be entered at the beginning of the firing tables what the

 9     standard conditions are.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, so they are known.

11             THE WITNESS:  Yes.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

13             Please proceed.

14             MR. IVETIC:

15        Q.   Another variable that needs to be taken into account for the

16     accuracy of any outgoing round would also be the actual maps that were

17     being used by the artillery commander to direct the fire?

18        A.   I wouldn't quite put it like that.  The map is important in order

19     to get in the general area of the target, but after that, one adjusts the

20     round onto the target.

21        Q.   Could you describe for us what in -- in the military term

22     adjustment rounds is used, are those actually regular mortar shells just

23     fired at a bearing?

24        A.   Yes, they are.  What happens with a normal artillery shoot, shall

25     we say, is that an observer chooses a target.  He informs the gun

Page 5527

 1     position of the co-ordinates of the target and his direction to the

 2     target.  At that stage, one round is fired at the target.  This comes up

 3     either on target or much more likely it comes up somewhere off target,

 4     and the observer then corrects it in relation to his position.  So he

 5     will tell the gun position that it's right or left or it's up or down.

 6     So he's looking for them to add or drop or to go left or right.  And they

 7     do that with their next round, and that's closer, hopefully, and then

 8     perhaps a further fourth round is actually a target round, and then they

 9     go into what's called fire for effect, where you might fire five rounds

10     from six weapons at the target.  That would be standard artillery

11     conventional warfare practice, but clearly it was not something which

12     happened to a great extent in the Sarajevo area during 1993, 1994, 1995.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Could I ask one other clarifying question,

14     Mr. Ivetic.  One of the previous questions was whether the accuracy of

15     the outgoing rounds would also be influenced by the actual maps that were

16     being used.  Now, I have some difficulties in understanding the question,

17     and therefore I think you also did not exactly address the question,

18     unless I misunderstood it.

19             If you use an incorrect map, I take it that you make the wrong

20     calculations as how to fire.

21             THE WITNESS:  It depends, Mr. President, on the type of equipment

22     that the observer is using.  It may be that he is using a laser range

23     finder, for example, which will give him an exact position of the

24     location, or he may be just using the bare map, in which case he would

25     probably not be more accurate than within 100 by 100 metres.  If you

Page 5528

 1     remember, we were talking about grid references earlier on.  He would

 2     normally give down a six-figure grid which means 100 by 100.  If the map

 3     was inherently inaccurate or his equipment was wrongly calibrated then

 4     clearly there would be an issue of the target not being as close to -- or

 5     the round not being as close to the target as it should be first -- even

 6     first time round.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  And that's what triggered you to answer that by

 8     adjusting the next round would resolve that problem if any inaccuracies

 9     would result --

10             THE WITNESS:  Yes.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  -- from that combination of two factors:  Equipment

12     and the details of the maps.

13             THE WITNESS:  That is correct, sir.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, please proceed.

15             MR. IVETIC:

16        Q.   Sir, first of all, the single rounds that would have been fired

17     as adjustment rounds, those would still be, I presume, lethal rounds with

18     the same lethal radius and danger zone as the target round?

19        A.   Yes, they would have exactly the same characteristics.

20        Q.   Now I'd like to ask you --

21        A.   Sorry.

22        Q.   Go ahead.

23        A.   Occasionally in areas of difficult visibility it might be that

24     one would use a smoke round, and you might remember earlier on there was

25     a reference to gas.  My opinion was that that would have been a smoke

Page 5529

 1     round which was fired in an area of difficult visibility, because it

 2     isn't always possible to see the fall of shot where the round comes down,

 3     so smoke could be used to get a better indication of where the round

 4     comes down.  But ballistically the smoke round and the high explosive

 5     round would have the same ballistic characteristics.

 6        Q.   Thank you.  I'd now like to ask you if you can estimate for us

 7     how many analyses of craters you have performed to determine the bearing

 8     of the incoming fire in your career?

 9        A.   Not very many.  I couldn't give you any sort of a number as such,

10     but it wouldn't be more than a few dozen.

11        Q.   Was it part of your formal training to deal with craters and

12     determine the source of fire?

13        A.   Yes, it was.  I've been doing it since 1978 in Lebanon.

14        Q.   And do you perform instruction in the military as to this skill?

15        A.   Yes, I do.  I spent three years in the artillery school in our

16     defence forces teaching this amongst other subjects.

17        Q.   And --

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic, could I just also seek just for my

19     understanding, bearing means just ...

20             THE WITNESS:  Direction.  Direction, sir.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Direction only exclusively, no distance.

22             THE WITNESS:  No.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Please proceed.

24             MR. IVETIC:

25        Q.   Is -- is keeping abreast of all developments and new techniques

Page 5530

 1     or studies in mortar crater analysis, was it part of your job when you

 2     were an instructor at the artillery school defence forces?

 3        A.   Yes, it was, at that time.

 4             MR. IVETIC:  Just check one moment, Your Honours.

 5        Q.   Lieutenant-Colonel Hamill, I thank you for your time and your

 6     testimony today.  I have no further questions for you.

 7        A.   Thank you, sir.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber, any questions in re-examination?

 9             MR. WEBER:  A few if I could, please.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

11                           Re-examination by Mr. Weber:

12        Q.   Lieutenant-Colonel Hamill, did you find any evidence that the

13     mortar that hit the Markale market came from a mobile mortar on the

14     Presidency side?

15        A.   No.

16        Q.   Does the location that a mobile mortar, you were asked about the

17     shoot and scoot method, that that mobile mortar is fired from remain a

18     target after the mobile mortar has left that location?

19        A.   It should not so do, but I'm not saying at any stage that there

20     was a mobile mortar fired at at this time or that there was one anywhere

21     in the area at that time.

22        Q.   Maybe this would be --

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber, for the accuracy of the transcript, is my

24     recollection right that you asked one of the previous questions whether

25     Mr. Hamill did find any evidence that the mortar that hit the Markale

Page 5531

 1     market came from a round fired from the Presidency side because now it

 2     reads did you find that the mortar and I think you were asking about

 3     evidence about it being fired from the Presidency side.

 4             MR. WEBER:  For clarity, if I can repeat the question and just

 5     seek the confirmation.

 6        Q.   The question that I thought I read in was -- which appears to be

 7     a little --

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Different perhaps from and it may be relevant.  If

 9     you would repeat your question and then we'd see whether Mr. Hamill gives

10     the same or a different answer.

11             MR. WEBER:

12        Q.   Did you find any evidence that the mortar that hit the Markale

13     market came from a mobile mortar on the Presidency side?

14        A.   Same answer:  No.

15        Q.   If I could return or maybe more clearly ask you the question.  If

16     a mortar is firing from a location, in returning fire is the target the

17     mortar or the location?

18        A.   The target has to be the mortar.

19        Q.   Okay.  So is there any type of confirmation that you would seek

20     before returning fire on a mortar?

21        A.   Well, I would expect it would be in the same position until such

22     time as I found different.  With modern equipment, it's possible to

23     locate a mortar very quickly and get information to a counter-battery gun

24     to fire on that position.  Mortars are inherently dangerous places to be

25     around in conflict.

Page 5532

 1             MR. WEBER:  I have no further questions.

 2                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic, has the questions in re-examination

 4     triggered any need for further questions?

 5             MR. IVETIC:  Just one.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

 7                           Further cross-examination by Mr. Ivetic:

 8        Q.   If a mobile mortar had been the source of fire for the Markale

 9     incident, would you expect to find any physical evidence of the same with

10     the type of examination that your team performed?

11        A.   Not at Markale, it wouldn't be possible.  It doesn't matter where

12     the round was fired from or in what capacity the weapon was located.  The

13     end result is that a mortar bomb hit the market place in Markale at a

14     particular angle, at a particular time, on a particular day, and caused

15     certain damage.

16             MR. IVETIC:  Thank you for that answer.  No further questions,

17     Your Honours.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.  Upon further considering I have one

19     question for you.

20                           Questioned by the Court:

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Are you familiar with or do you have specific

22     knowledge about the analysis of a mortar impact on the basis also of the

23     speed of the projectile upon impact?

24        A.   The higher the speed on impact the further down the tunnel will

25     go, but also at a particular time, the mortar bomb reaches a terminal

Page 5533

 1     velocity which is limited by the fact that it's moving through air which

 2     is causing some resistance.  Everything falling accelerates at a

 3     particular rate and then ceases to accelerate because of air resistance.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  But I was hinting at knowledge which would

 5     allow on the basis of the speed of impact to make further findings on the

 6     trajectory of the projectile and the distance the projectile travelled.

 7        A.   I am not aware of any literature, sir, that provides that sort of

 8     information.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.  This was one more question, Mr. Ivetic.

10     If that triggered any further questions, then of course --

11             MR. IVETIC:  No, Your Honours.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Then, Mr. Hamill, this concludes your testimony in

13     this court.  I'd like to thank you very much for coming to The Hague, for

14     having answered all the questions that were put to you, and -- both

15     questions by the parties and by the Bench, and I wish you a safe return

16     home again.

17             THE WITNESS:  Thank you, Mr. President.

18                           [The witness withdrew]

19             JUDGE ORIE:  I am addressing the parties.  I do not know exactly

20     what you agreed upon as far as scheduling is concerned.  I think there

21     was a request for the next witness to start his examination on Thursday

22     morning as a result of a long travel, and that in that case then the

23     parties would have agreed that the evidence of that witness will be

24     received in its entirety tomorrow without additional sessions.  Is that

25     still the case?

Page 5534

 1             MR. WEBER:  Yes.  We intend to stay within our estimate.  It's my

 2     understanding that that would, with the cross, still conclude tomorrow.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, that is a commitment by the parties they have

 4     agreed upon, and we will then start tomorrow with the evidence of that

 5     witness and not today.

 6             Then --

 7                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  I have a few procedural matters which we could deal

 9     with at this very moment, but if there's anything, Mr. Weber, you would

10     like to --

11             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, if you don't mind I'll put one quick

12     thing on the record just so we're able to later associate it.  During the

13     cross-examination, reference was made to 1D435.  I just wanted to put on

14     the record that this is the same document that's referred to in the

15     witness's previous testimony that's been admitted at pages 6114 to 6117.

16     I believe otherwise it would be kind of hard to associate the current

17     testimony and the previous testimony.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Reference was made to it.  It was not tendered

19     do you wish to tender it?

20             MR. IVETIC:  I could tender it at this moment if it would assist.

21             MR. WEBER:  No objection.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar, 1D435 would receive number.

23             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit D104, Your Honours.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  D104 is admitted into evidence.

25             Then a few matters.  First - and it deals with the MFI'd exhibits

Page 5535

 1     P517 up to and including P520 and P522 - the Chamber has considered the

 2     objections that were raised against the admission of the exhibits that

 3     were marked for identification Friday the 16th of November, 2012, during

 4     the testimony of Witness Birte Weiss and now admits into evidence

 5     Exhibits P517, P518, P519, P520, and P522.

 6             There is another matter.  When we discussed recently a Rule 70

 7     motion -- and perhaps I better go into private session for a second.

 8                           [Private session]

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 5536











11 Page 5536 redacted. Private session.















Page 5537

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8                           [Open session]

 9             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, we're back in open session.  Thank

10     you.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.  We dealt with the matter which should

12     have been in private session.  We also dealt with one correction on the

13     transcript and a time limit to respond to a translation matter which we

14     could have dealt with in open session.

15             We adjourn for the day.  We resume tomorrow, Thursday the 22nd of

16     November at 9.30 in this same Courtroom III.

17                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.30 p.m.,

18                           to be reconvened on Thursday, the 22nd day

19                           of November, 2012, at 9.30 a.m.